The search for this missing mass has focus on three different types of particles or objects that would be invisible or would not interact with electromagnetic energy while at the same-time influence the gravity forces of the visible mass component our universe.

The first or Axions are very light particles with a specific type of self-interaction that makes them a suitable CDM candidate.  Axions have the theoretical advantage that their existence solves the Strong CP problem in QCD, but have not yet been detected.

The second or MACHOs or Massive Compact Halo Objects are large, condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets. The search for these consists of using gravitational lensing to see the effect of these objects on background galaxies. Most experts believe that the constraints from those searches rule out MACHOs as a viable dark matter candidate.

Finally, WIMPs or Dark matter which is composed of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. There are no currently known particles that have its properties, but many extensions of the standard model of particle physics predict such particles. The search for WIMPs involves attempts at direct detection by highly sensitive detectors, as well as attempts at production by particle accelerators. WIMPs are generally regarded as the most promising dark matter candidates. The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter particles passing through the Earth, but many scientists remain skeptical, as null results from similar experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA results.

However, Einstein suggested another possibility in the speech “Aether and the theory of Relativity” he made on May 5th 1920 at the University of Leyden Germany where he indicated The General Theory of Relativity predicts that “space is endowed with physical qualities”

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

However, Einstein only endowed space with the field properties of a space-time dimension and not the physical qualities of mass.  Therefore, if one accepts the validity of his theory the physical properties he was referring to must be a result of those field properties not those of mass in its particle form.  This suggests a portion of the missing mass found by Fritz Zwicky may be related to those field properties is not what most associate with the mass of objects or particles.

Yet it is difficult to form a clear picture of how a field consisting of space-time can have the physical properties of Dark Matter because as was shown in the article “Defining what time is” Sept. 20, 2007 time is not perceived by most as matter but as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.  Therefore, it is hard to understand how the physical properties Einstein associated with space can interact with the non-physical properties of a time or a space-time dimension to create mass.

But Einstein gave us the ability to solve this and develop more direct understand how and why the field properties of space-time can be responsible for Dark Matter when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of mass in a space-time universe.  This is because that provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy in a space-time dimension to unit of space associated with mass in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the field properties of a space-time environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions means as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that one can also define the gravitational properties mass in terms of a spatial displacement in field properties of four *spatial* dimension.

Therefore, according to Einstein if the continuous field properties of a three-dimensional space manifold were displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension a gravitational field would be created which because it is not made up of particles would not interact with light and therefore be Dark.

In other words, a portion of the gravitational forces associated with Dark Matter may not be the mass associated with particles but with the physical qualities Einstein in his speech “Aether and the theory of Relativity” tells us that a displacement of space must have

However, this contradicts the current worldview shared by most physicists and cosmologists that gravitational forces can only be created by mass in its particle or quantized form.  This is true even though observations tell a different story.

For example Louis de Broglie was the first to predict mass is made up of the continuous field properties of space when he theorized that all particles have a wave component because according to modern theories that is the only thing that can support continuous properties of a wave.

Additionally the electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer provides experimental confirmation of this because that one can observe the transfer of momentum from a particles wave component to the electron caused by that interaction.

In other words, the mass we associate with particles must be composed of the oscillation in the field properties of space because that is the only thing that could be responsible for their wave components.  Therefore, those fields must also have the properties associated with mass.

If this is true why then do we only observe its particle properties?

One can understand why by extrapolating the laws of governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment, as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to the field properties of the wave Davisson and Germer observed particle to be composed of to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly, it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the continuous field properties of space or as was shown above mass the ability to oscillate on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate spatially with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in the field properties of space would be responsible the mass and therefore the gravitational potential of particles.

However, there are at least two reasons why we are unable to directly observe the field properties of the mass component of space. The first is because all observations require an exchange of energy between what is being observed and the observer. Yet the most effective way for nature to transfer information to our instruments is, as was shown in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“ in a resonate system made up of the field properties of mass.  Therefore, in all measurements the particle properties associated with its resonant system will always be predominant over its field ones.

This is why as mentioned earlier its field properties are only observable in terms of the interference of the wave properties particles as was demonstrated by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.

The second and probably the most significant is that to measure a quantity there must be a physical difference between what is being measured and what is doing the measuring.

For example, one cannot measure the force on the walls of ship lock created by the changing level of water from a ship in it by measuring how high it is above its surface because it is changing at the same rate.

As was mentioned earlier Einstein tells us a displacement in the continuous “surface” or field properties of a three-dimensional space manifold which are displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would result in the creation of a gravitation field.

However, as it was with a ship one cannot measure the gravitational force on the “walls” of our universe generated by the mass associated with a displacement in a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold because we and all our instruments are floating on that “surface”.

Yet as mentioned earlier we can determine the mass component of space by measuring how the inertial properties of its field components interact with crystals in experiments such as those conducted by Davisson and Germer

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define all environments in either space-time or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined their geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories by making them applicable to both the quantum and field properties of space thereby giving us a new perspective on physical make up of dark matter

Later Jeff

Copy right Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

The post Finding Dark Matter appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The Higgs boson discovered at the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, in 2012, is what, according to the Standard Model of particle physics gives all other fundamental particles mass. However, despite the work of thousands of researchers around the world, nobody has been able to figure out exactly how it does that or why some particles are more massive than others.

However, there is another way to understand mass and its resistance to acceleration based solely on the field concepts of Einstein’s theories.

For example, Einstein defined the physicality of mass in terms of the energy density associated with a displacement in space-time which he quantified by the equation E=mc^2. This means he also defined the reason some particles are heavier than others is because they have a greater displacement and therefore a greater energy content than other masses. Pitting it another way the equation E=mc^2 not only defines physicality of mass but also quantifies why some particles are heavier that others in terms of in terms of the field properties of space-time.

However, his equations and the observations of particles in particle accelerators tell us the relativistic mass of a body increases over its finite rest mass as it is accelerated with respect to an observer and that energy must be added to it to do so.

He also tells us the rate at which energy can added to a mass is limited by the speed of light. This means according to Relativity, the reason why mass resists acceleration is because the speed at which energy can be added to it is limited. Putting it another way according to it, the reason for its resistance to acceleration MAY not be related to the field properties of a Higgs boson but to the field properties of space-time that limits the rate at which energy can be added to it.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that because Einstein’s relativistic equations tell us that mass or its energy content increases as it approaches the velocity of light it will take more energy to make an incremental change in it. Therefore, because it limits the speed at which energy can be added to it, it will resist acceleration more than one that is at rest with respect to an observer.

In other words, one does not need the Higgs boson to explain a particles mass and why it resists a change in motion because one can use the OBSERVABLE properties of our environment and of Einstein’s theories to do so.

The post 4. Explaining mass and its resistance to acceleration in terms of the field properties of space time. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

But why have the best minds in the scientific community been unable devise an experiment to detect the physical properties of space that Einstein was so sure must exist to support the propagation of light.

The reason may be because they are not looking in the right direction.

For example 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised an experiment to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary Aether (“Aether wind”) by creating a device that sent yellow light from a sodium flame through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. If the Earth is traveling through an Aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of Aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the Aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

However they did not observe a fringe shift and therefore conclude that space did not contain the “physical medium” called Aether. This negative result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent Aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary Aether concept has no role.  The experiment has been referred to as “the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution”.

However Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity did not endow space with the physical qualities of mass, he endowed it with the geometric properties of a space-time dimension.  Therefore, when Einstein referred to space as having physical properties he may not have been referring to the physical properties of a medium made up of mass such as the “Aether” but those imparted to it by the geometry of space-time.

The significance of changing one perspective form space having the physical properties associated with mass to one of the geometric properties of space or a space-time dimension can be best understood if, as has been done many times in the The Road to Unification one transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of four *spatial* dimensions.  This is because one could use the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of the non physical properties of a time or space-time dimension to derive the physical properties of Einstein’s space. 

Einstein made this possible when he derived the geometric properties space-time, energy and the dynamic balance between it and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2. 

For example he told us the energy associated with mass causes a curvature or contraction in the “surface” of space-time and when mass is converted to energy it causes the three-dimensional properties of space-time to expand because of a decrease in its curvature he associated with that event.  This spatial expansion and contraction would be analogous to how the two-dimensional surface of a balloon either expands of contract when air (energy) is added or taken away from it.

Observations of our environment tell us that all forms of mass have a spatial component or volume and because of the equivalence defined by Einstein one must assume that energy also has a spatial component.  However, one can use the fact that the equation E=mc^2 uniquely defines the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of both energy and mass to convert or transpose the curvature in space-time Einstein’s equations associated with energy to one that would define it in terms of a curvature in a four *spatial* dimensions associated with the *spatial* properties of mass.

Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it allows for the defining of a one to one qualitative and quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that one can derive all forms of energy in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension.

Additionally it tells us the medium Einstein referred to in his address at the University of Leyden was most likely the geometry of three-dimensional space because his theories show that space it in itself has physical properties in that it can cause changes in its environment similar to how the geometric expansion and contraction of the two dimension surface of a balloon can cause physical changes in its environment.

If it is true that the physical medium Einstein was referring to was related to the geometric properties space and not a properties of mass as we are suggesting one should be able to explain why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect it in terms of the concepts contained in that article.

Part of the answer can be found in the article “The causality of motion” May 1, 2013 which derived the causality of an inertial reference frame in terms of the relative separation the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the causality of all accelerated motion including gravitational was a result of the interaction of an inertial reference frame with the slope of a curvature in the “surface” of three-dimensional space while deriving the causality of its inertial properties in terms of a constant linear displacement of two different “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was the causality of all accelerated reference frames.)

In other words it showed the energy of relative motion was not imparted to it by its motion through space but by a displacement of its three-dimensional geometry with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.

However this means the casualty of the forces experience by the components of an inertial reference frame in constant motion are an integral part of the geometry of their moving environment and therefore would not be dependent of their relative motion.

The theoretical significance of defining the causality of constant motion in terms of the geometry of four *spatial dimensions is that it allows one to understand why the propagation of light or electromagnetic energy is independent of the motion of an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 derive all forms of energy in terms of a geometric displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This was the basis for defining the causality of electromagnetic energy in the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 in terms of the differential force caused by the “peaks” and “toughs” of a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the electromagnetic properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the geometric properties of a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated  to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

However this also defines the causality of the electromagnetic properties of light and its propagation in terms of the physicality of the dimensional properties of space.

Yet this also means that the propagation of light would not be depend on the existence of the physical properties of mass as most including Albert Michelson and Edward Morley associated with the aether but only on the physicality of of the geometric properties of space.

This also means the velocity of light would not be influenced by the relative motion of an inertial reference frame because as mentioned earlier all of its components including light share the same geometry and therefore the same relative velocity.

This suggests that the “Aether” or the medium Einstein said must exist to support the propagation of light, and the existence for standards of space and time is a physical property of the geometry of space and not that of an independent element as is suggested by the modern interpretation of the Albert Michelson and Edward Morley.

However it also means that according to Einstein space-time concepts no experiment no matter how sensitive to motion will be able to detect any change in the velocity light due to the relative motion of an inertial reference frame.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post Light and the physicality of space appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether.  According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.  But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time.  The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

But why have the best minds in the scientific community been unable devise an experiment to detect the physical properties of space that Einstein was so sure must exist to support the propagation of light.

The reason may be because they are not looking in the right direction.

For example 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised an experiment to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary Aether (“Aether wind”) by creating a device that sent yellow light from a sodium flame through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. If the Earth is traveling through an Aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of Aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the Aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

However they did not observe a fringe shift and therefore concluded that space did not contain the “physical medium” called Aether.

However Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity did not endow space with the physical qualities of mass, he endowed it with the geometric properties of a space-time dimension.  Therefore, when Einstein referred to space as having physical properties he may not have been referring to the physical properties of a medium made up of mass but those imparted to it by its geometry.

For example he derived the energy of accelerated reference frames not in terms of mass but how it changes as it approaches a gravitational field by assuming it moved through curvature or change in geometry of space-time.  However he could not do the same for the energy associated with inertial reference frames in constant relative motion because it does not change with time,

Therefore to define the energy and mass associated with of the geometry of an inertial reference frame one must transposes or convert Einstein’s space-time geometry to four *spatial* dimensions because that is only thing that changes in inertial reference frames in motion .

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to an equivalent unit of space in four spatial dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

(This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that one can derive all forms of energy in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.) 

However If it is true that the physical medium Einstein was referring to was related to the geometric property of space and not a properties of mass as we are suggesting one should be able to explain why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect it in terms of geometry of its spatial properties.

Einstein told us that gravitational mass was the result of a curvature in the geometry of a space-time manifold.  In other words a change in the relative height of an object in three-dimensional space with respect to the time-dimension was responsible for the gravitational energy of mass

Similarly one could define the energy associated with the constant relative motion of an inertial reference frame in terms of a constant spatial displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words it showed the energy of relative motion was not imparted to it by its motion through time but by a linear geometric displacement of three-dimensional space with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.

However Einstein also told us that mass and energy are interchangeable therefore the substance of the Aether he was referring to in his address was the energy of the relative motion of inertial reference frames.

This means in an inertial reference frame in constant motion all of it parts in including the energy and therefore any Aether it contains is part of its geometric properties therefore must share the motion of as all its other parts.

In other words the reason Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect the relative motion of an inertial reference frame through the geometry of space-time or four spatial dimensions because the Aether is that geometry.  In other words no relative motion was observed in their experiment for the same reason that an object or reference frame cannot have any relative motion with respect to itself

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose whether to define the mass or substance contained in all systems in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined it and the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The geometry of Einstein’s Aether appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.